Shoaib Mohammad Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026BA/1420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act bail allowed; Section 37 NDPS embargo held inapplicable; CDR / mobile location evidence contradicting place of arrest and seizure; 70 grams mephedrone (MD); panchanama doubt; C B D Belapur Police Station Crime No. 0112 of 2024; charge-sheet filed; Bail Application No. 1420 of 2025; Justice R. M. Joshi; decided 27-03-2026; P.R. bond Rs. 30,000/-; conditions of monthly NCB reporting.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in connection with Crime No. 0112 of 2024 (C B D Belapur Police Station): release on P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; Applicant to attend the Narcotics Control Bureau, Belapur, Navi Mumbai once a month till framing of charge; and not to interfere with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. ¶ORDER (i)

Shoaib Mohammad Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the CDR collected by the prosecution itself creates doubt as to whether the Applicant was present at the spot of the alleged incident when the seizure panchanama was prepared, i.e., whether the contraband was in fact recovered from him at Navi Mumbai. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

On the material on record, doubt is created on the face of it as to whether the Applicant was present at the spot of the incident at the time of preparation of the panchanama of seizure of the contraband from him; the Court finds substance in the Applicant's contention based on the prosecution's own CDR evidence.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Though it was claimed the Applicant was taken for further investigation to Ghatkopar pursuant to a statement made by him, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate so; in absence of such evidence, the prosecution may not be in a position to explain that circumstance during trial.

¶5

Key takeaways

This Court has reason to believe that the Applicant may not have committed the offence; further, in absence of antecedents, there is no reason to believe that on being enlarged on bail he would commit similar crimes.ratio¶6
Consequently, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply to this case, and the bail application deserves to be allowed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: R. M. Joshi, J. (decided 27 March 2026) — Bail allowed under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Crime No. 0112 of 2024, C B D Belapur Police Station; alleged recovery of 70 grams of mephedrone from the Applicant at Navi Mumbai at about 9.40 p.m. on 21 May 2024; charge-sheet filed). Decisive ground: the CDR collected by the prosecution itself — the Applicant's mobile phone having been seized and kept in working condition — indicated the Applicant at Kurla and Ghatkopar at 11.50 p.m., creating doubt on the face of it whether he was present at the spot when the seizure panchanama was prepared; the learned APP could point to no record of the Applicant having been taken to Ghatkopar pursuant to any statement, so the prosecution may not be able to explain the circumstance at trial. The Court had reason to believe the Applicant may not have committed the offence; noting absence of antecedents, it held the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. Released on P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two local sureties; conditions: monthly attendance at NCB, Belapur till framing of charge, and non-interference with prosecution evidence.

¶1

18-BA-1420-2025.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1420 OF 2025

¶5

Shoaib Mohammad Sayyed …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Taraq Sayed , with Anish Pereira and Aryan Kotwal, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. A. S. Gawai , APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

Mr. D. B. Ovhal , API attached to ANC, Navi Mumbai, present.

¶9

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 27^th MARCH, 2026.

¶10

PC:-

¶11

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No. 0112 of 2024 dated 22^nd May 2024 registered with C B D Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

¶12

It is the case of the prosecution that on 21^st May 2024 at about 9.40 p.m., the Applicant was apprehended at Navi Mumbai and from his possession 70 grams of Mephedrone (‘MD’) came to be recovered. The panchanama was prepared. Now, admittedly the charge-sheet is filed against the Applicant.

¶13

Page 1 of 4 27^th March, 2026.

¶14

18-BA-1420-2025.DOC

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the evidence collected during the course of the investigation creates doubt about the story of the prosecution with regard to the presence of the Applicant at about 9.40 p.m. on 21^st May 2024 at Navi Mumbai, i.e., the place where the Applicant was accosted. To support his submission, he places reliance on the CDR from the charge-sheet, which indicates that at 11.50 p.m., the Applicant was at Kurla and Ghatkopar. It is his submission that since this evidence is brought on record by the prosecution, a doubt is created as to whether the Applicant was apprehended at the spot as claimed by the prosecution and any recovery of contraband was made from him.

¶16

The learned APP opposes the Application by contending that since the Applicant made statement about bringing the contraband from one Aftab from Ghatkopar, he was taken to Ghatkopar and therefore, his mobile location is seen at Ghatkopar. A specific query is made as to whether there is any record to indicate so. The learned APP on going through the record, is unable to point out any such recording being made in the charge-sheet.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that at about 9.40 p.m. on 21^st May 2024, the Applicant was found in possession of contraband, namely, ‘MD’ at Navi Mumbai. As recorded in the charge-sheet, the mobile phone of the Applicant was seized and kept in a working condition. In the light of this fact, the CDR is collected by the prosecution indicating location of the mobile phone. Though, it is sought to be claimed that the Applicant was taken for further investigation to Ghatkopar pursuant to a statement made by him, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate so. Needless to say, that in absence of any such evidence, the

¶18

Page 2 of 4 27^th March, 2026.

¶19

18-BA-1420-2025.DOC

¶20

prosecution may not be in a position to explain the said circumstance during the trial. As such, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that a doubt is created on the face of it as to whether the Applicant was present at the spot of the incident, at the time of preparation of the panchanama of seizure of the contraband from him.

¶21

Thus, this Court has reason to believe that Applicant may have not committed the offence. In absence of antecedents, there is further no reason to believe that on being enlarged on bail, he would commit similar crimes. Hence, embargo of Section 37 of the Act, does not apply to the instance case.

¶22

Consequently, the Application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) The Bail Application stands allowed in connection with Crime No. 0112 of 2024 dated 22^nd May 2024 registered with C B D Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai;

¶25

(ii) The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶26

(iii) The Applicant to attend the Narcotics Control Bureau, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, once in a month till framing of the charge;

¶27

(iv) The Applicant not to interfere into the evidence of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever;

¶28

Page 3 of 4 27^th March, 2026.

¶29

18-BA-1420-2025.DOC

¶30